Peikoff's Arguments for Causality and Free Will

[itsjames]

SuperMetroid, from what I've read, my understanding of free will is essentially the same as yours. I agree that this is however not the view most Objectivists take. I believe free will is axiomatic, but I think the argument that it is consistent with causality would go something like this (I pulled this from one of my posts in the forum topic Law of Causation and Free Will):

We did not will ourselves into existence. Our existence is the result of the universe acting in accordance with it's nature. So, yes, we did originate from forces outside of our control (obviously.) But once we come into existence, the primary motive force that determines the development of the rest of our lives, which determines the choices we make, is our mind, which is what we are. The existence of free will follows from the nature of the human mind. The mind is separated from it's environment, it requires fuel from outside sources, but other than that, it runs totally on it's own. Free will is not anymore complicated than that.

Edited December 31, 2009 by itsjames

[Grames]

I don't think you really understand what "emergent behavior" is. It is as deterministic as rocks in a landslide, and in the same way. Except it's a "landslide" that's trillions of times more complicated, self-aware, and recursive. However, I will grant that many people who argue in favor of determinism are in fact arguing against free will, and that many determinist don't understand emergent behavior either.

It's like a landslide, except it's not like a landslide at all. Wait, what?

I am not up on the state of the art in emergent systems research, but I know what emergent behavior is.

Maybe Objectivism itself doesn't make any further claim, but almost every Objectivist in this thread has made further claims. Most are in fact claiming that volition is not and can not be derived from any deterministic physical laws.

Volition is axiomatic, is it not? One can (hypothetically) demonstrate how it works, but how could that have the status of a derivation if we know in advance that volition is possible because it is axiomatic? It would be a circular argument, just as consciousness itself can be recursive.

It is not a mystery. Physical determinism giving rise to volition is both the only possible and only plausible explanation. It's not hand-waving, because it's making a very specific claim as to the nature, scope, and cause of the phenomenon. It is a very important philosophical claim to those who understand the implications.

It is not specific enough to avoid the charge of handwaving, there are no details, no math. There is an entire missing science about " trillions of times more complicated, self-aware, and recursive" systems. And it is science, not philosophy. The only philosophical statement to be made is that such a science is possible.

Try reading the rest of the thread, or any of the other threads on this topic, or any of the replies that follow. Most Objectivists don't even entertain the notion of a physical, deterministic cause for volition. Most of them will entertain a "physical" explanation, but they require special laws of physics to be in operation for the brain to make sense, i.e. everything in the universe is deterministic except for the human brain (and quantum mechanics if you believe in that nonsense, but that's for another thread).

I have participated in most of those threads, I know well that there are no special physics being invoked in the threads I participate in. Most of them are attempts to argue from the laws of physics to the conclusion that volition does not exist, an argument vulnerable to attack in many ways on a purely logical basis.

If you drop "deterministic" from "physical" you are no longer talking about a physical explanation at all, but rather a nonsensical explanation that violates any concept of physical law. If dropping cause-and-effect (i.e. the fundamental concept of physics) is how one chooses to reconcile physics with volition, that's the same as dropping physics altogether.

You are equivocating between the simpleton version of determinism and your " trillions of times more complicated, self-aware, and recursive" version. The naive version is plainly not adequate to describe the phenomenon of volition and should be dropped. The science of emergent consciousness does not yet exist, so it is unclear what the difference is that permits volition to exist and yet still be somehow deterministic.

Tell me, just how do the brain particles move about according to the dictates of consciousness if they were not bidden by the laws of physics to do so? Are you going to say: "The laws of physics make special exceptions for human consciousness." Or perhaps this one: "I don't know how they do it, and it doesn't matter how either, but obviously do." Obvious to whom? Such a statement would only be rendered obvious while under the assumption that volition cannot exist unless particles behave in a non-deterministic manner. Will you now say: "It is obvious that volition cannot arise from deterministic systems"? What are your qualifications for making such a statement? Did not each human brain come into existence from deterministic mechanisms? At what point is the brain granted the mystical power to bend the laws of physics? Or perhaps it is you attempting to bend the laws of physics to replace a gap in understanding?

I don't make any of these arguments, and I would join you in denouncing anyone who did. Volition obviously does arise from deterministic systems, if you put enough of them together in the right structure. I think the controversy is in attempting to call the end result also deterministic, in the same sense as the components are deterministic. Those components are clearly not volitional. It is a contradiction to say volition both does and does not exist, while you call attention to the contradiction of claiming it both is and is not deterministic.

I can speculate that the way out this conundrum is that deterministic has two senses, and the second more complex sense of deterministic is volition. Of course the problem is that the 'second sense of deterministic' is a completely empty idea, it is the missing science of consciousness. Until that science is invented we know that volition is axiomatic, and that will suffice to refute advocates of naive determinism and its ethical consequences.

[Grames]

The mind is separated from it's environment, it requires fuel from outside sources, but other than that, it runs totally on it's own.

This is exactly the dualism that is not tenable. There is only one existence, and the mind is fully in it. It is not separate.

edit: Score one for SuperMetroid.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Grames

[itsjames]

This is exactly the dualism that is not tenable. There is only one existence, and the mind is fully in it. It is not separate.

edit: Score one for SuperMetroid.

I did not claim that the mind is separate from existence. I said it is separate from it's environment. Please don't interpret that to mean TOTALLY CUT OFF FROM its surrounding environment. That would neither be possible nor necessary for free will. But it is separated enough to function, for all intents and purposes, independently.

Edited December 31, 2009 by itsjames

[Grames]

I did not claim that the mind is separate from existence. I said it is separate from it's environment.

The brain is separate from its environment by the skull and the rest of the body supporting it, but the mind is absolutely in contact with and derivative of existence, which includes its environment.

[itsjames]

The brain is separate from its environment by the skull and the rest of the body supporting it, but the mind is absolutely in contact with and derivative of existence, which includes its environment.

I don't know what it means to be a "derivative" of existence. The mind exists. Period. According to merriam webster, the mind is "the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons". A brain is what makes a mind possible. The mind is in "contact" with the surrounding environment of the organism only in the sense that it perceives that environment. "Free" modifies "will" in the phrase 'free will'. Our will, our ability to choose our actions, is what is free, not our perception of reality. We have no choice over what material our senses gather for us.

[SuperMetroid]

Grames, I don't have an issue with your argument, but in my view, most people I've seen discuss this topic will do not agree with you. They usually support some sort of dualism that enables the mind to be free from the constraints of physics, or they simply point to the fact that it doesn't matter how it works within the scope of the philosophical claims of Objectivism. They definitely don't entertain the concept of a "naive determinism" versus a more sophisticated understanding that might enable volition to coexist with it. Determinism is just a naughty word around here.

[itsjames]

Are you talking to Grames or me?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Those of you who want to start this discussion at the level of physics are starting at the wrong end of the knowledge hierarchy. Philosophy is more fundamental than physics, and philosophy says start with your observations -- and you observe that you make choices all of the time. How you reconcile that with physics is to realize that you are a man instead of a balloon or instead of a rock or instead of a congregation of subatomic particles. In philosophy, the man -- each individual man -- is the entity under discussion, not his trillion cells and not his quintillion atoms. Man qua entity has the capability of making decisions and directing his own mind and his own actions. These thoughts and directions are under his control; in a sense you can say man is self-caused in that each man forms his own character based upon how he directs his own mind and his own actions. This is not a contradiction to physics, because physics never gets into the nature of man and how he makes choices -- physics has a different context, and so the two understandings of causation are not at conflict. Efficient causation is fine for inanimate things (one thing hitting another), but it is not sufficient for discussing man, who is self-motivated. The one overall grasp of causation that covers everything in all contexts is that an entity is what it is and acts the way it does due to the fact that it is what it is. Man is man and he has free will, so physics does not cover the functioning of his mind or his self-directed actions; it just doesn't cover that aspect of man's existence. There is no physics equation for a man making a choice.

[itsjames]

Man is man and he has free will, so physics does not cover the functioning of his mind or his self-directed actions; it just doesn't cover that aspect of man's existence.

Newtonian physics does not pertain to the functioning of a man's mind. However, since all matter is composed of particles, particle physics does. The fact is that the material of which man's mind is made, is particles. So there should not be a contradiction between our theory of free will and the laws of particle physics.

[cowleyad]

"Free Will" and "A is A" don't seem compatible at all. If man has certain attributes and cannot be anything other than a man (A is A), how can he say to have "Free Will"? Man can only act in accordance with what a man is. However you define what "man" is makes no difference to this. If man can only act as man, at all times, man has no "Free Will" to act as something other than man. Once we take into account everything that is forced onto a man's psyche, we can see that man makes involuntary decisions, wholly based on determinism. "Free Will" is an illusion. An illusion that stems from the idea that we actually have control over our Will.

For example: a child is bit by a dog at a very young age, this causes the child to fear dogs through the rest of his/her life. This is involuntary, deterministic behavior. The child did not exercise "Free Will" as to be scared of that dog, or any other dog for that matter. The only "solution" to the child's fear of dogs is from an outside source. This outside source "forces" the child to stop being scared of dogs, by any means that seem fit for that occasion (be it education, therapy, or whatever). This outside force has molded the child in a certain way as to control their behavior, in a very specific, involuntary way. They turn the behavior of "not being scared of dogs" into a habit, something involuntary. Again, this shows the child never really had "Free Will". After all, "Free Will" implies that we can "choose" to do whatever we please. We can't, we are bound by the "A is A" dichotomy.

[Grames]

I don't know what it means to be a "derivative" of existence. The mind exists. Period. According to merriam webster, the mind is "the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons". A brain is what makes a mind possible. The mind is in "contact" with the surrounding environment of the organism only in the sense that it perceives that environment. "Free" modifies "will" in the phrase 'free will'. Our will, our ability to choose our actions, is what is free, not our perception of reality. We have no choice over what material our senses gather for us.

What it means is that existence is primary, consciousness is just one of the things that exists. Furthermore, consciousness is awareness of particular existents so is inherently relational and about something outside of consciousness. Perception is a causal process that reaches deep inside the mind and is part of its process of being aware. All of the mind's content, the thinking, feeling, willing, remembering, imagining, dreaming and hallucinating is based on the perception of entities and attributes, possibly recombining in a manner different than in which they were first encountered. Derivative refers to that "being based on".

Claiming consciousness is independent of existence is the opposite of derivative. It is the claim that consciousness can have its own content which does not necessarily have any relation at all to what is perceived. In this same sense of consciousness being independent of reality Descartes claimed "I think, therefore I am." Then it became a real problem to sort out how anything could ever be said to be true when there was an optional relationship between reality and an idea rather than a necessary relationship. Ideas in the mind existed independently but were claimed to represent objects in reality. Various forms of representationalism combined with a correspondence standard of truth all fail in the face of fatal logical flaws, as the philosophers Berkeley, Hume, Locke, and Kant discovered.

The first chapter covered by my Notes on The Evidence of the Senses covers this sequence and its arguments and consequences, and the ultimate counter argument which is the primacy of existence principle.

[itsjames]

Grames, I don't understand how that is a refutation of anything I've said. I never claimed consciousness was independent of existence.

[Grames]

After all, "Free Will" implies that we can "choose" to do whatever we please. We can't, we are bound by the "A is A" dichotomy.

Oh look, a naive determinist! Let's get a posse up and go huntin':

"A is A" is not a dichotomy, try looking up big words before using them in a sentence.

Objectivism does not claim the freedom in free will is arbitrary, a literal "whatever we please." There is always a choice limited to the options available, and one option always available is to focus awareness onto what is before you which necessarily puts aside emotions and makes them non-determinative to behavior.

[Grames]

Grames, I don't understand how that is a refutation of anything I've said. I never claimed consciousness was independent of existence.

Post #29 "But it is separated enough to function, for all intents and purposes, independently."

Consciousness exists and has its identity, but describing its function as independent is a mistake. Its function is radically dependent upon what it perceives.

[SuperMetroid]

Efficient causation is fine for inanimate things (one thing hitting another), but it is not sufficient for discussing man, who is self-motivated.

Newtonian physics does not pertain to the functioning of a man's mind.

"Free Will" and "A is A" don't seem compatible at all.

Grames, now do you understand why I've said that almost everyone on these forums is making claims that go well beyond the extent of "free will is axiomatic and it doesn't matter how it happens"? All of these statements are directly implying that no form of cause-and-effect physical behavior is sufficient to give rise to volition. This is the overwhelming sentiment on these forums, whether you notice it or not. All of these people have the naive understanding of determinism and refuse to acknowledge the existence or sensibility of anything else.

[itsjames]

Post #29 "But it is separated enough to function, for all intents and purposes, independently."

Consciousness exists and has its identity, but describing its function as independent is a mistake. Its function is radically dependent upon what it perceives.

You're taking that out of context. I said numerous times that a mind is in contact with reality in the sense that it perceives reality. It's (for all intents and purposes) independent functions are what we refer to when we say free will.

If you're not going to read and try to understand my posts there is no point in having this discussion.

[itsjames]

This is absolutely appalling. To anyone just stepping into this topic, I suggest you read all the previous posts, not just jumping in and picking and choosing which lines you want to read. This is my last post on the topic.

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm not looking for a validation of volition. I agree that it is axiomatic. What I was is a logical link between volition and causality. I want an argument for why volition is consistent with causality.

Yeah, you and me both. The problem is, the brain is a very complex machine, and we are nowhere near understanding how it works, let alone how it came to exist.

Another thing that's gonna be tough to do is "prove" that there is no contradiction. (without actually showing what it is denying -the logical link- to exist) What is possible, is to shut down specific claims that there is a contradiction, by pointing to the fault in the person's reasoning.

Maybe Objectivism itself doesn't make any further claim, but almost every Objectivist in this thread has made further claims. Most are in fact claiming that volition is not and can not be derived from any deterministic physical laws.

What I said (and I assume others said) is that it doesn't have to be derived to know it exists, since volition is axiomatic. (We can observe it, so it exists. ) It's also a fact that it hasn't been derived.

I assume when you say something "can be done", you are implying that it can be done in the context of the real world, not some science fiction novel, or your imagination. The only way to derive something which exists is by explaining how it came into being. We don't even know how the brain works, so how exactly do you plan on deriving it, to support your claim that "it can be done"? Your claim is exactly like the claim of any futurist who says "X will happen". How do you know? Maybe it won't, maybe the Earth will end tomorrow and no other intelligence will ever inhabit it, thus proving that no, it couldn't be done.

You have to understand tha logic is an abstract concept, created by Aristotle to describe the World. Just because the Word is undoubtedly logical, doesn't mean that logical inferences which have not been made actually exist. They do not. A logical derivation of Volition from Causality does not exist.

[Grames]

Grames, now do you understand why I've said that almost everyone on these forums is making claims that go well beyond the extent of "free will is axiomatic and it doesn't matter how it happens"? All of these statements are directly implying that no form of cause-and-effect physical behavior is sufficient to give rise to volition. This is the overwhelming sentiment on these forums, whether you notice it or not. All of these people have the naive understanding of determinism and refuse to acknowledge the existence or sensibility of anything else.

I see what you mean.

Well Thomas M. Miovas Jr. is making fairly abstract attack on the logic of determinism as in the naive sense, that is what 'efficient causation' is referring to. Saying efficient causation is not adequate is not the same as repudiating it completely and declaring the brain a physics-free zone. For example chemistry is reducible to physics, but physics is an epistemologically inadequate tool to use to think about and understand chemistry. He'll probably be along to clarify and defend himself.

The other two posters are new and their understanding of determinism is the one in the popular culture, it is not representative of Objectivism or this forum. It is good that they are here, this is probably the first serious Objectivist discussion of volition vs. determinism they have participated in.

Now if you wanted to bring up Dr. Binswanger and his crazy assertion that nothing affects volition, that it is even useless to study philosophy, you have a very strong point. But he isn't here.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Just because the Word is undoubtedly logical, doesn't mean that logical inferences which have not been made actually exist. They do not. A logical derivation of Volition from Causality does not exist.

I would argue that identity as it applies to consciousness is what you are looking for. Consciousness exists, and so does free will in man, so those are the facts from which you have to derive your view of existence and man's place in it. But you are right that one does not start from some premise and derive logically that man has free will, because it is something we directly observe about the nature of our own consciousness. Just as one does not derive logically that we are observing the world, so we do not derive logically that man has volition. That is the mistake made by determinists, they want to derive an axiom, when axioms are direct observables as understood by a conceptual consciousness. One doesn't derive free will or volition, one observes it.

And to the guy who claims we don't have free will because we do not have total control of ourselves -- i.e. we cannot freely turns ourselves into something else, like into a basketball -- if you are going to bring up fantasy scenarios, why should we take you seriously at all? To say we don't have free will because we cannot make ourselves into something else is to create a straw man argument because no one on the free will side is claiming that is what free will means anyhow. Free will means you have the capability of directing your conscious mind -- you can freely choose to think about this post or you can freely choose to ignore it. That is the basis of free will.

[Grames]

You're taking that out of context. I said numerous times that a mind is in contact with reality in the sense that it perceives reality. It's (for all intents and purposes) independent functions are what we refer to when we say free will.

If you're not going to read and try to understand my posts there is no point in having this discussion.

It is not out of context at all. You want to exempt the mind from the causality that exists everywhere else, that is the point of reaching for the word 'independent'.

[cowleyad]

Cause and effect? Interesting idea, I think. That we somehow truly understand a cause merely from observing the effect. This tie is only a probabilistic event, nothing more. What cause and effect behavior gives rise to volition? I am asserting that volition would never be possible without a will to "create", or carry out, that choice in the first place. The will is only an impulse you have to carry out a certain "decision" you've made. If A is A, volition outside of human understanding is not possible. In other words, a person can never NOT act like a person. A person's volition will never go beyond who they are. A person can never make a choice based purely on a decision outside of the concepts in their mind. These concepts that we've built are purely individualistic, there is no "universal" concept, only interpretations of that concept (unless, of course, we get into mathematics), which have been learned through the society we live in and who, and what, we've come into contact with. Our experiences.

"All of these people have the naive understanding of determinism and refuse to acknowledge the existence or sensibility of anything else." I completely disagree. In order to have sensibility in the first place, you must learn it. Once you've learned to be sensible, you've given up the ability to "choose" to be sensible or not. You are sensible, or you are not. Sometimes, your feelings take over, creating a situation where you're completely insensible. Other times, you will look at things "sensibly" out of habit or when a certain stimuli "pushes" you in that direction. I have a hard time believing you spend your entire day saying, "Alright, how should I act at this given moment? What is the 'most' sensible thing to do right now?" Just like a pro athlete couldn't really tell you how they're good at the sport they participate in, they just are.

As we learn more and more about our genes and DNA, we begin to paint a picture that shows we are creatures of a semi-deterministic nature. We have "Free Will" only to the extent of what we know and what we have experienced. If I ONLY had three choices, would I say I had the "Free Will" to ONLY choose between those three choices?

[cowleyad]

Oh look, a naive determinist! Let's get a posse up and go huntin':

"A is A" is not a dichotomy, try looking up big words before using them in a sentence.

Objectivism does not claim the freedom in free will is arbitrary, a literal "whatever we please." There is always a choice limited to the options available, and one option always available is to focus awareness onto what is before you which necessarily puts aside emotions and makes them non-determinative to behavior.

"Dichotomy" was the wrong word to use. Love the sarcasm though, keep it up! Interesting to see what kind of folk are on here... If you don't agree, you're naive! It's so refreshing to finally find an authority on such a hotly debated issue as this! Thanks for enlightening us all!

On a serious note, "Free Will" cannot be separated from arbitrariness. How else could you "prove" free will if you didn't have some arbitrary standard to measure it against? Ayn Rand draws this line by saying "Free will is your mind’s freedom to think or not." How can one choose NOT to think? If you weren't thinking, you wouldn't be conscious. If you aren't conscious, you're dead (or severely mentally incapacitated). What would a "non-thinking" man look like? How could we identify such a person?

[Nicko0301]

"Dichotomy" was the wrong word to use. Love the sarcasm though, keep it up! Interesting to see what kind of folk are on here... If you don't agree, you're naive! It's so refreshing to finally find an authority on such a hotly debated issue as this! Thanks for enlightening us all!

On a serious note, "Free Will" cannot be separated from arbitrariness. How else could you "prove" free will if you didn't have some arbitrary standard to measure it against? Ayn Rand draws this line by saying "Free will is your mind’s freedom to think or not." How can one choose NOT to think? If you weren't thinking, you wouldn't be conscious. If you aren't conscious, you're dead (or severely mentally incapacitated). What would a "non-thinking" man look like? How could we identify such a person?

As I understand it, when Rand posited that one's free-will lay in there ability to think or not, she didn't mean "think" in the way in which you're using it. Certainly, one can be unfocussed and still experience disparate, unconnected thoughts. However, that is not what Rand meant: she used the term "think" to denote a purposeful, focused activity, aimed at attaining comprehension. One cannot certainly not perform such a feat without conscious exertion.